PRAKASAN K S Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the petitioner in O.P. 32221 of 2001. He was working as a Forest Guard in Malayattoor Division. Alleging dereliction of duties, indiscipline, assault on superior officers after trespassing into the quarters and misuse of departmental vehicle, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Ext. P-1 dated 8-3-1993 is the memo of charges. An enquiry was conducted Ext. P-2 dated 31-5-1994 is the report of enquiry wherein the enquiry officer had reported that the charges alleged against the appellant stand proved. Accepting Ext. P-2 report, the disciplinary authority issued Ext. P-3 notice calling upon the appellant to show cause for not imposing a penalty of barring two increments with cumulative effect. Ext. P-4 objection submitted by the appellant was overruled and by Ext. P-5 order dated 25-10-1994, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty stated in Ext. P-3. Assailing Ext. P-5 order, Ext. P-6 appeal was preferred before the third respondent which was rejected by Ext. P-7 dated 22-11-1995. A second appeal was preferred before the second respondent. It was rejected by Ext. P-8 order dated 4-4-1998. Thereupon, a review was preferred before the first respondent. By Ext. P-10 order dated 16-1-2001 the review was also rejected. Assailing Ext. P-5 order as confirmed in Exts. P-7, P-8 and P-10, the original petition was preferred. The appellant had also taken a contention that on allegation of trespass and assault against the superior officer, criminal case was registered and the appellant was prosecuted before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class I, Muvattupuzha, in S.T. 565/1993. By Ext. P-11 judgment he was acquitted. According to the appellant, in the light of acquittal by Ext. P-11, the appellant is entitled to be absolved from the charges levelled against him. Before the learned Single Judge reliance was also placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and others, 2006 5 SCC 446 and Basanti Prasad v. Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board and others, 2009 6 SCC 791 . Learned Single Judge did not find favour with the argument advanced. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 26-5-2010, assailing which this appeal is preferred. We have heard Smt. Sumathi Dandapani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant and perused the records.

(2.) The strong argument advanced before us is that in the light of Ext. P-11 judgment of acquittal, the appellant is entitled to be exonerated and that it is not just and appropriate to sustain the penalty imposed against the appellant. Learned senior counsel had also given reliance to the decisions cited before the learned Single Judge.

(3.) Going by Ext. P-1, we notice that there are specific allegations of dereliction of duties, disobedience, assault on Sri B.K. Maloor, Range Officer, after trespassing in to his quarters and misuse of motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KL 1B-3540, owned by the department. The misuse of vehicle is alleged with a plea that the appellant who had no driving licence, had ridden the motor cycle and that he did not make entry in the log book regarding the use of the vehicle. It is reported to be recurring and continuing. From Ext. P-11, we notice that the respondent was prosecuted before the learned Magistrate only for criminal trespass and assault on the Range Officer Sri B.K. Maloor who was examined as P.W. 1 before the trial Magistrate. The allegations of dereliction of duty, disobedience and misuse of vehicle were not at all subject-matter in the criminal prosecution. Therefore, for the sole reason of acquittal in criminal case, the appellant is not entitled to be fully exonerated from the charges. Adding to the above, on reading of Ext. P-11, we find that the Range Officer who was assaulted by the appellant had given evidence in support of the prosecution case. He was disbelieved only for the reason that two occurrence witnesses, who are officials, turned hostile to the prosecution and for the reason that there is delay of one day in lodging the complaint before the police. The acquittal, by Ext. P-11 is not at all an honourable acquittal. It is for want of sufficient corroborating evidence. The standard of proof in a criminal case is totally different from the standard of proof in departmental proceedings. In criminal case, benefit of reasonable doubt would always go in favour of the accused. On the other hand, in disciplinary proceedings, presumptions, assumptions and inferences may go in support of the charge. Even failure of the delinquent to properly explain may go against the delinquent. Even if an alternative conclusion is possible than the one arrived by the enquiry officer, it is not a reason to interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer. From Ext. P-11, it appears to be an acquittal giving benefit of doubt. It is not an acquittal of the blame. In the above circumstances, we find that the appellant is not entitled to be exonerated in the light of Ext. P-11. As against the finding regarding dereliction of duties, disobedience and misuse of vehicle, there is no material to come to a conclusion that the charges are without any basis.